' The petitioners challenge the order, dated 4th January, 1978, passed by the Border Area Committee, whereby the land purchased by them from claimant was cancelled
2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that Claims Nos. 472 and 473 were filed on behalf of Mehrban claimant for the land abandoned by him in India. It was verified by the Central Record Office for 42 Bighas and 12 Biswa s and the claim sent to village Gunjial Mandi, Tehsil Khushab. It was entered at Khata 73 RL-II and equated with 195 P.I.U.
3. The entitlement was then sent to Gujranwala on 2nd May, 1952, without any allotment having been made at Gunjial. On 18th April, 1953, a proposal for the allotment of land equivalent to 272 P.I.U.
Was made at Khata 47 of Register RL-I[ of village Pokhar Pur, Tehsil Gujranwala. On 22nd May, 1953, a mutation of inheritance of Mehrban was attested in favour of his legal heirs Chhajju and Yasin.
The allotment was confirmed on 27th July, 1953. Chhajju and Yasin thereafter, sold the entire land on various dates.
4. The same entitlement of Mehrban was entered in Register RL II of village Malakpur, Tehsil Lahore also. It is stated before me by the Patwari that the record does not show as to how it was received there. The entitlement was then transferred to village Ichogil on 23rd December, 1972, where land equivalent to 415 P.I.U. Vas allotted. The entire land was then sold and transferred by Chhajju and Yasin to the present petitioners for a sum of Rs, 50,000. The mutation was attested, on 3rd May, 1973.
5. On 27th November, 1976, respondent No, 2 applied to the Border Area Committee for cancellation of the allotment. He alleged that Chhajju and Yasin had been allotted land in excess of their entitlement. It was thereat that the impugned order was passed on 4th January, 1978.
6. The first grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the case had been fixed on 5th January, yet the said date was accelerated without notice to 4th January, 1978, when the evidence was also recorded and the case decided. This position is denied by the respondents.
According to them, the case had actually been fixed on 4th January, in the presence of the other learned counsel. To support it, the learned counsel for the Border Area Committee produced the record, which showed that the case was adjourned rightly to 4th January, vide order, dated 27th December, 1977. The respondents' counsel alleged that in fact the petitioners' counsel was present outside the Court on the appointed date, but had slipped away when the case was called. The learned counsel, however, has denied that contention but states that though he was present on the previous date yet he noted the next date as 5th January, 1978.
7. Be that as it may, the record shows that the case had been adjourned to 4th January. There is no overwriting or tampering with the record. Strangely, the other parties also appeared on the said date. Thus, the plea that the learned counsel noted it in his diary for 5th May be of no help to him.
Rather, it is his own fault and he cannot blame others for into it. Again, such a plea, if it was to be seriously pressed should have been raised by him before the Border Area Committee, who could have inquired it. It could have also gone into the allegation of the respondents that the learned counsel was actually present on that day outside the Court. The fact that the petitioners avoided that situation would have adverse inference. At any rate, such a plea, if at all accepted may have provided the petitioners with another opportunity by way of rehearing. Taking that into account and to ensure that no injustice is done to them on that score, I have summoned the entire relevant record alongwith officials as pointed out by the petitioners' counsel and allowed the petitioners every opportunity to promote their case.
8. After going through the record, it has been found as a fact that the land abandoned by Mehrban was 42 Bighas and 12 Biswa s, equivalent to 185 P.I.U. The claim was sent to Gunjial wherefrom it went to Gujranwala. Land equivalent to 272 P.I.U. Was then allotted in village Pokharpur. The Patwari who is present with the record today, states that Haji Khan Patwari, who made the entries took charge on 17th September, 1951, and left charge on 6th May, 1953. According to him, the entries are genuine.
9. The position is also supported by subsequent mutations of inheritance and the sale of land. In this view of the matter, I have no justification to hold that the claim of Mehrban had either not been transferred to A Pokharpur or was not settled there. In fact he got 87 units more than his entitlement. Consequently, the finding of fact arrived at by the Border Area Committee on that score cannot be interfered with.
10. It is also not clear if the claim had been validly sent to village" Malakpur. Admittedly, there is no entry about it. Consequently, the transfer of the claim to Ichogil and the subsequent allotment there is not authorised.
11. The above finding is apart from the fact that if the claim had already been settled at Pokharpur, there was no question of its transfer and subsequent allotment against it in village Ichogil. The allotment in question was thus fraudulent or at least unauthorised and undeserved. On that score also, the order of the Border Area Committee cannot be said to be invalid and it has to be maintained.
12. The learned counsel then relied on O.S.D., Central Record Office v. Bashir Ahmad (1) to say that as the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value, without notice of any defect in the title of their vendors, their purchase could not have been cancelled. That proposition might have been entertainable if there was a valid claim and the same had not been exhausted and been validly transferred. The position is, however, quite different. The claim of Mehrban had been finally settled in 1953 in village Pokharpur. Consequently, no claim was available to any one so as to get the same transferred to either village Malakpur or Ichogil Thus, the allotment made there cannot be said to be genuine or valid. As a result the subsequent purchase cannot stand on a higher footing. Again, it is clear that the petitioners did not make any inquiry into title of their vendors and so they cannot claim any better title. In this view of the matter, I do not think the petitioners stand to gain under the judgment referred to above.
' For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with cost.
(I) 1977 SCM R 208